T Nation

Ron Paul 2012 Is Offical!



Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaignâ??s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his â??money bombâ?? fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshireâ??s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paulâ??s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008.

This would seem to be an ideal year for Paul: Since the last election, the Republican Party has moved much closer to his view on deficit reduction, which made him an early tea party favorite. All of the party's top-tier presidential hopefuls are focusing on lowering debt, government spending, and tax rates, issues Paul has long advocated.


Just when I give you a pat on the back for an earlier inspired thread you post this nonsense about this seeming like an ideal year for Ron Paul.

Honestly John what is it about Ron Paul NEVER being elected to the Presidency that you don't understand?


ZEB, do you know which thread you posted in where you explained why he can't be Pres? I remember glossing over it but would like to take another glance.


Yeah, he probably won't win.

I'll vote for him anyways though.


You go sell your soul to Romney so when the dollar goes to hell you can say at least we have a republican in office. :slight_smile:

Can't wait till the 5th for the first debate.


Hey there Andy how you doing?

The thread you are referring to is called "Ron Paul: Don't cut NPR GTFO of Afghanistan" and was posted by the biggest Ron Paul supporter on T Nation John and it was on 3-17-11.

You might be taking about the following posts:

Please don't walk around thinking that Paul could beat Obama. You have contributed much to this forum of substance. None of it has anything to do with Ron Paul. When it comes to Paul you have a very large blind spot. If Paul were fortunate enough to win the republican nomination (which he WILL NOT) he would get beaten so badly by Obama it would make the Reagan/ Mondale election look like a squeaker.

One more time:

1-Too old and tends to sound like he's whining.

2-He is the anti-charisma candidate. People with zero charisma look at him and say "At least I have more charisma than Ron Paul."

3-Too radical (to pull the middle)

4-Congressmen don't get elected President(maybe it happened once 100 years ago).

5-The MSL media would beat him up so bad in comparison it would look like they were just playing around with Sarah Palin.

You really have to give up this idea that Paul is ever going to get elected to anything other than the seat he currently holds in the House. Just walk away man. I know you believe in the things that he espouses but find another candidate who actually has at least a ghost of a chance.

First of all John, you're either not paying attention to my posts, or you must have some sort of counter which you have not posted. As I've pointed out to you time and again it doesn't matter who the best debater is. I even gave you the Kennedy/Nixon example. But none of this means a thing to you. All you see is Ron Paul being the best debater and a sage when it comes to debate and mastering the issues. A national election is so much more than this, as I've explained already.

I guess I'll just have to say it one last time and then I won't come back. Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President because he's an old man who sounds like he's whining. He has a lack of charisma that is unequalled in American politics at this level. It doesn't matter how much he knows about the economy, or that he is a strict constitutionalist (as if the average voter cares about that one). All that will matter is that he will be standing next to Mitt Romney or, anyone else (pick any other viable candidate) and he looks bad. End of story. I know you don't want to think that people are that shallow but as I've already explained and poll after poll every four years tells us, most people don't start paying attention to the Presidential election until about 30-60 days away from the election. And when they do they mostly vote their emotion. You are a rare breed John especially for your age, and I admire you for that. But most people especailly the ones who start paying attention 30-60 days out don't understand the issues and they vote on emotion.

Now unless you have some facts which prove me wrong I suggest you lighten up with the Ron Paul rhetoric it's only making you look bad. And keep in mind that I am not enjoying these little reminders to you. I wish that you were correct. While I don't fully agree with everything that Paul stands for he is so much better than Obama I'd trip over myself getting to the voting booth to vote for him, but that choice will NEVER come.

Your spiteful move to vote for Obama is immature and beneath your intelligence level. After Paul is defeated why not pick the best candidate who is left and vote for him? Do you think I liked voting for McCain in 08'? Nope. But he was absolutely head and shoulders better than the inexperienced lefty we now have.


Hes to old. Once the president is part of a younger generation aka obama. Older canidates are rarely elected.
I really wish Paul Ryan would make a run at the Republican nomination. Really smart guy, I would vote for him.
Im so sick of liberals spending tons of money and encouraging people to be lazy worthless kid having fucking losers. Not to say any fucking shit head in DC should be proud. They are pretty much all fucking worthless at this point in time.

Free trade with china... yeah thats a joke, doesnt exist.


John why would you refer to supporting the republican candidate as "selling your soul"? That is nonsense. I will support the GOP nominee. I am hoping that we can come up with someone better than Romney. But in the event that the candidate is Mitt Romney I will support him as I think, unlike Paul, he has a reasonable chance of winning.

You have to give up your unnatural affection for Paul he's not winning anything. As I've said in the past if he plays his cards right and we all get lucky and dump Obama Paul may have a chance at a cabinet post.

Now wouldn't it be good to see Paul as Secretary of the Treasury? You have to be a team player John. That's something that many 20 something's don't quite understand. And if you look at Paul's support it's overwhelmingly young males. There's a lot of rebellion at that age which Paul gladly feeds from a genuine stand-point.

But no Paul is not winning, nor is he getting the republican nomination. And one more thing, he's not even coming close. You were right here on this forum four years ago saying the same things you are now. I told you then he was not going to win or even come close and he didn't.

I'd offer to make a bet with you but I know you're too smart for that. There's a difference between beating the drum for a candidate and actually putting something of value up as a sign of confidence in that candidate.


Now why would you say that? He will do no better this time around in the debate than he did last time. I know you thought he crushed everyone, but when the results came out that evening and the next day in the media no one said Paul won, or even gave a good accounting of himself. Do you know why John?

Because what he had to say could not be heard over what he was. In other words, he came off as a shrill sounding, old man who was just a little off his rocker. I know, I know he's far from crazy, but that is exactly the image he projects to the typical American voter.

How many times do you think I'll have to explain this to you, and have it come true before you actually give up the ghost on this?

We all like many of his ideas. But he's not a good enough candidate to express them. Simple.

One more point, the reason I think Obama will be reelected is because he is an excellent candidate. Young, charismatic, good speaker and somewhat motivational. Granted he's a lousy President, but a good candidate and a well run campaign, with a big war chest can make most people forget all about that.

Odd how the system works isn't it? But at some point you're going to have to stop trying to put a round peg in a square hole and actually try to understand some of this stuff if you are going to be credible.

And don't walk around resentful "if I can't have Paul I'll vote for Obama". That's the kind of attitude that never wins. Embrace the system it is all we have to make a difference. And if we all get behind the best candidate we can make a difference. Look what the far left did with Obama. While I think he's possibly the worst President since LBJ I give the people who stood behind him and in particular the ones who got him elected a lot of credit. They ran a very slick campaign.

There will be a Paul like candidate coming along eventually. Don't give up John. But please stop this Ron Paul nonsense, it helps no one and makes you look like an inexperienced starry eyed kid.


Are you aware of his voting record? I don't think Paul Ryan is serious about cutting spending, he's all about rhetoric. While we can't say past record is a 100% certainty guage for future record, I'd like to think it is a rational assessment of a candidate. His past votes do not inspire confidence at all. And his debt reduction plan is a joke.


The main difference between us is I am a Libertarian first, Republican second. My goal is simply not to have a democrat in office at any cost, it is to get what I want no matter if that means voting for someone who is a sure bet to fix the country or a sure bet to crash it into the ground so it then wake people up and have a great rebuilding.

If they put Romney up against Obama but it looks like the GOP will hold the house and take majority of the Senate then my best bet is to elect Obama over Romney. Reson is very simple, either they will spend the entire time fighting and stay out of the economy while it recovers, or two Obama will cave and do what the GOP wants which means that next election the left will put out a very vocal radical to run after Obama's second term which will result in the GOP nominating their extreme, thus allowing a 3rd party candidate to emerge and shake the whole system up.

Now if Ron Paul doesn't get nominated but another Reagan show's up then I would have no problem voting for that person, but out of the current crop Ron Paul is the best by far.


He doesnt have a chance to win but his campaign can be very educational during the last gasps of our republic.

I also disagree with him on a few issues but he is the most principled man in Washington and he is outside the Fed/banker/mega-corporation cartel that has ruined us.

I'm with him.


You've made another rookie mistake. No one, not the best politico's can predict this far ahead. You're youth and inexperience is showing...again.

How can someone be the best who has no chance of winning. Why don't you write yourself in? You have just about the same odds of becoming President as Paul. Granted you're under the age of 35 so you are forbidden by law to hold that office, but someone born in another country is also forbidden to hold that office and it didn't stop Baaarrrrack. LOL okay, okay, I'm done.

Enjoy the Paul candidacy for as long as it lasts.


Zeb - I've seen how adamant you are about this so I want to ask you a question. How can the GOP get back to its roots if we keep voting for the best candidate available? The more we vote for some typical big government GOP douchebag, the longer the GOP thinks it's doing the things it takes to keep our vote. OR we can waste our vote on a 3rd party, let the democrats win for an election and hope the signal is strong enough to let the GOP know it has some shaping up to do.


Bottom news story of the day. I also think Paul is going to be very disappointed when he learns that he cannot surf the tide of the Tea Party movement and that he really is not their darling.

That said, since his candidacy is headed nowhere, he will likely be used as a foil for legitimate candidates who will be making a play for independents. In that sense, the old buffoon has perhaps perhaps has found his perfect role.


This is it in a nutshell.

I like the old bastard, but as ZEB said he would make a much better Secretary of the Treasury than a Presidential Candidate, harvesting votes from conservative candidates.

Also, please Jeebus......no Romney.


Dr. Paul certainly has my vote. I have no interest in voting for anyone out of the machine yet again. Don't you people ever learn?


The scenario that you suggest may never happen if we allow Obama another term. He pushed through health care even though about 70% of the people did not want it. What will the country look like by 2016 if we don't get behind the best GOP candidate? Do you honestly think that we can easily reverse all the damage that will be done? Think again.

John wants change, but change does not happen over night. Change is something that happens one step at a time. Every one (at least every adult over the age of 30) knows that Paul is never going to be President. So why not actually try to elect someone who can take that one step toward real change? If the country is ready for it and is actually going to reject Obama style liberalism then whomever we elect from the GOP will step up to bat and give the people what they want.

If you are claiming that Obama is better than Romney or any other GOP candidate because he will be so bad that the country will then want someone like Paul that is just about the craziest theory that I've ever heard. And even if correct will cause severe damage to the country. What you're saying is let's do more damage to the country because at this particular time we cannot have exactly what we want.

Think about it, would you do this with anything in our life that you actually value?


I completely agree. Great news, but I have doubts about him becoming POTUS. Every chance he has to get his message out the better. I think the public will respond well to his anti-war, foreign affair, fiscal, and small government policies this time around. I could see some Dems getting on board with him after seeing Obama turn into Bush III.

Apparently Jesse Ventura wants to run with him. Can you imagine? The white house would be like a reality TV show with Jesse releaseing classified documents and pulling skeletons out of closets. I'm sure Trump wouldn't mind producing the show.


Obama will not have a Democrat controlled house and senate again. I don't think it's possible for him to push through any more radical nonsense.

Really? The republicans have not had someone do that since Reagan. Bush 1 and 2 both grew the government and spent too much money. What makes you think the next GOP blowhard won't do the same when it is politically convenient to do so? (btw, I'm not a complete Bush hater like most, but he did expand the government and spend too much money)

I'm not claiming Obama is better than Romney, I'm claiming another GOP douchebags won't do this country much good, either. And furthermore, the whole lot of GOP douchebags will NEVER change if we keep voting for them.

This insinuates I do not have a vested interest in the way this country is run. I don't want Obama for another term any more than you do, but with a republican house and/or senate his hands are tied up more than they were before 2010 elections. I will vote for whomever I believe should be the next president, I'm not "falling in line" with party if the party chooses someone that I don't like. Personally, I think the whole "falling in line" mentality is part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.

Also, I've agreed with you on several occasions regarding RP being unelectable.